Autoclaving Nest-Material Remains Influences the Probability of Ectoparasitism of Nestling Hoopoes (Upupa epops)
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemEditorial
MDPI
Materia
Bacterial community Chemical volatiles Ectoparasitism Hoopoe Nest-material Uropygial gland
Fecha
2020Referencia bibliográfica
Mazorra-Alonso M, Martín-Vivaldi M, Peralta-Sánchez JM, Soler JJ. Autoclaving Nest-Material Remains Influences the Probability of Ectoparasitism of Nestling Hoopoes (Upupa epops). Biology. 2020; 9(10):306. [https://doi.org/10.3390/biology9100306]
Patrocinador
Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovacion y Universidades; European Union (EU) CGL2017-83103-PResumen
Microorganisms may have direct negative effects on their animal hosts and cause
diseases, but some others provide animals with protection against infections, parasites, and even
predators. However, parasites or predators might take their cue from odors produced by bacteria,
even those from protecting microorganisms, which could turn net benefits of bacteria that are a priori
considered beneficial into a neutral or even negative outcome. This possibility has scarcely been
studied in wildlife populations; we manipulated the bacterial community of nest-material of hoopoes
and detected a negative effect in terms of the intensity of parasitism by blood-sucking flies that
nestlings suffer. We also detected a positive link between the bacterial density of the nest-materials
and the intensity of ectoparasitism, which further points at the importance of the bacteria determining
the level of parasitism. Blood-sucking ectoparasites are also disease vectors, affecting both humans
and livestock, and considering the role of the bacterial environment might help to establish new
transmission control protocols. Nest bacterial environment influences avian reproduction directly because it might
include pathogenic- or antibiotic-producing bacteria or indirectly because predators or ectoparasites
can use volatile compounds from nest bacterial metabolism to detect nests of their avian hosts.
Hoopoes (Upupa epops) do not build nests. They rather reuse holes or nest-boxes that contain remains
of nest-materials from previous breeding seasons. Interestingly, it has been recently described that
the nest’s bacterial environment partly affects the uropygial gland microbiota of hoopoe females and
eggshells. Blood-sucking ectoparasites use chemical cues to find host nests, so we experimentally
tested the hypothetical effects of microorganisms inhabiting nest-material remains before reproduction
regarding the intensity of ectoparasitism suffered by 8-day-old nestling hoopoes. In accordance
with the hypothesis, nestlings hatched in nest-boxes with autoclaved nest-material remains from
the previous reproductive seasons suffered less from ectoparasites than those hatched in the control
nest-boxes with nonautoclaved nest-material. Moreover, we found a positive association between the
bacterial density of nest-material during the nestling phase and ectoparasitism intensity that was
only apparent in nest-boxes with autoclaved nest-material. However, contrary to our expectations,
nest bacterial load was positively associated with fledgling success. These results suggest a link
between the community of microorganisms of nest-material remains and the intensity of ectoparasitism,
and, on the other hand, that the nest bacterial environment during reproduction is related to fledging
success. Here, we discuss possible mechanisms explaining the experimental and correlative results, including the possibility that the experimental autoclaving of nest material affected the microbiota of
females and nestlings’ secretion and/or nest volatiles that attracted ectoparasites, therefore indirectly
affecting both the nest bacterial environment at the nestling stage and fledging success.